ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

newshawnee · 14 April 2014, 02:23 PM

I was given this watch as part of an estate inheritance. I noticed the markings "220m=660ft" is wrong? Shouldn't it be 200m as in all the other ones I see on the internet? Also the word Submariner is kind of larger and more cramped font than all the other confirmed real ones on the internet. Even the work Tudor has cramped spacing compared to others. But its been in the family since 1985. Serial number 756029. Not working either. Is this an early fake? See pics. Thank you for any assistance.

newshawnee · 15 April 2014, 02:07 AM

Please post your opinions on this watch. I was planning on selling it on Ebay. But I do not dare list it unless I am sure its real. I had an appraisal done at a local jewelry store. They said its real, and that it needs $800.00 in oil, clean and adjustment to make it work. It currently runs too fast. Its a 40mm, model 7928 according to the "non-rolex" dealer. But it still bothers me that the dial says 220m (not 200m). It was supposed bought in France in the 1960's. Please help me verify this as real or not. I am an honest person who wants to make sure of what I sell. Thank you in advance.

seabreeze · 15 April 2014, 03:46 AM

i dont know, but I did find this reference online to a Tudor with a 220m dial

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/L...jectID=4899880

newshawnee · 15 April 2014, 04:47 AM

Thanks, I read the Christies auction description. They claim the Tudor rose logo disappeared in 1960-replaced by a shield. We all know that's not a fact. So I think their 220m is based on their guess that 1 meter = 3 feet. That is not correct. 220meters = about 721 feet. Not 660. I may post the tudor watch on ebay for bids. Please if this is fake, let me know. A dealer told me it was just a repainted dial. I have no idea what to believe. the appraiser said its real, but I still wonder about 220m mistake. please help if you can.

newshawnee · 15 April 2014, 04:51 AM

Also christies had it as a 7924. It should be a 7928 according to psoictures of these at high end watch dealers. so christies description is not right?

seabreeze · 15 April 2014, 05:25 AM

It's interesting that I also found a Basel 2014 press release that references a new model reissue of sorts rated at 220.

seabreeze · 15 April 2014, 05:26 AM

But I know nothing. I am hear to watch and learn

kooltzar · 15 April 2014, 06:34 AM

This dial is a complete fake. Neither fonts nor Rose shape are correct and also placement and thickness of the markers are wrong.

newshawnee · 15 April 2014, 10:46 AM

I did notice that the word 'Submariner" is of a larger and thicker font than all others on verified websites. Do you think the rest of the watch is a fake too?

Goiguidoc · 15 April 2014, 12:56 PM

All fake, sorry...
Cannot see the movement...

Lgear080 · 15 April 2014, 02:34 PM

Total fake

crowncollection · 15 April 2014, 03:41 PM

fakeroo, dial is terrible

newshawnee · 16 April 2014, 03:58 AM

I took more pics today. Serial and model number. Can someone tell me if they are fake looking? Could not get the back off with a sticky rubber ball as people suggested.

tudor9.jpg

tudor3.jpg

tudor5.jpg

tudor10.jpg

tudor7.jpg

newshawnee · 16 April 2014, 04:05 AM

better1.jpg

better2.jpg

newshawnee · 18 April 2014, 02:09 AM

Was verified as fake by Rolex people. Thanks everyone for your input.

15 April 2014, 03:46 AM	#3
seabreeze 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Ed Location: Martha's Vineyard Posts: 833	i dont know, but I did find this reference online to a Tudor with a 220m dial http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/L...jectID=4899880 __________________ Rolex Submariner 114060 - 2013 Rolex Explorer 1016 - 1967 Omega Seamaster 2220.80 2007 Victorinox Swiss Army 24221 - circa 1985 Sold but wish I didn't Rolex DateJust 1603 - 1972

15 April 2014, 05:25 AM	#6
seabreeze 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Ed Location: Martha's Vineyard Posts: 833	It's interesting that I also found a Basel 2014 press release that references a new model reissue of sorts rated at 220. __________________ Rolex Submariner 114060 - 2013 Rolex Explorer 1016 - 1967 Omega Seamaster 2220.80 2007 Victorinox Swiss Army 24221 - circa 1985 Sold but wish I didn't Rolex DateJust 1603 - 1972

15 April 2014, 05:26 AM	#7
seabreeze 2024 Pledge Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Real Name: Ed Location: Martha's Vineyard Posts: 833	But I know nothing. I am hear to watch and learn __________________ Rolex Submariner 114060 - 2013 Rolex Explorer 1016 - 1967 Omega Seamaster 2220.80 2007 Victorinox Swiss Army 24221 - circa 1985 Sold but wish I didn't Rolex DateJust 1603 - 1972

15 April 2014, 03:41 PM	#12
crowncollection "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Real Name: David Location: australia Posts: 20,186	fakeroo, dial is terrible __________________ watches many

16 April 2014, 03:58 AM	#13
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Please see new pictures of serial number I took more pics today. Serial and model number. Can someone tell me if they are fake looking? Could not get the back off with a sticky rubber ball as people suggested. tudor9.jpg tudor3.jpg tudor5.jpg tudor10.jpg tudor7.jpg

15 April 2014, 02:07 AM	#2
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Please post your opinions on this watch. I was planning on selling it on Ebay. But I do not dare list it unless I am sure its real. I had an appraisal done at a local jewelry store. They said its real, and that it needs $800.00 in oil, clean and adjustment to make it work. It currently runs too fast. Its a 40mm, model 7928 according to the "non-rolex" dealer. But it still bothers me that the dial says 220m (not 200m). It was supposed bought in France in the 1960's. Please help me verify this as real or not. I am an honest person who wants to make sure of what I sell. Thank you in advance.

15 April 2014, 04:47 AM	#4
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Thanks, I read the Christies auction description. They claim the Tudor rose logo disappeared in 1960-replaced by a shield. We all know that's not a fact. So I think their 220m is based on their guess that 1 meter = 3 feet. That is not correct. 220meters = about 721 feet. Not 660. I may post the tudor watch on ebay for bids. Please if this is fake, let me know. A dealer told me it was just a repainted dial. I have no idea what to believe. the appraiser said its real, but I still wonder about 220m mistake. please help if you can.

15 April 2014, 04:51 AM	#5
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Also christies had it as a 7924. It should be a 7928 according to psoictures of these at high end watch dealers. so christies description is not right?

15 April 2014, 06:34 AM	#8
kooltzar "TRF" Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Zürich Watch: Submariner 5512 Posts: 922	This dial is a complete fake. Neither fonts nor Rose shape are correct and also placement and thickness of the markers are wrong.

15 April 2014, 10:46 AM	#9
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	I did notice that the word 'Submariner" is of a larger and thicker font than all others on verified websites. Do you think the rest of the watch is a fake too?

15 April 2014, 12:56 PM	#10
Goiguidoc "TRF" Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Real Name: Greg Location: Europe Watch: Rolex vintage Posts: 1,062	All fake, sorry... Cannot see the movement...

15 April 2014, 02:34 PM	#11
Lgear080 Banned Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: NYC Posts: 3,506	Total fake

16 April 2014, 04:05 AM	#14
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Better pics of serial number better1.jpg better2.jpg

18 April 2014, 02:09 AM	#15
newshawnee Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Missouri Watch: Tissot Posts: 23	Was verified as fake by Rolex people. Thanks everyone for your input.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)